Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:00:00 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <0e31140fcbcbfc262e34d122cedde84577c02738@i2pn2.org> References: <1055ba7a1450658831b250bccda8af887bdc6c8a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:00:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="260275"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5637 Lines: 82 Am Wed, 28 Aug 2024 14:47:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 8/28/2024 2:21 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:44:53 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 8/28/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 18:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/28/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 9:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:59 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 7:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we assume that: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space as DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get past its own machine address 0000217a. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all. >>>>>>>>>>> When 100% of the whole point is for HHH to correctly determine >>>>>>>>>>> whether or not DDD would stop running if not aborted *IT IS >>>>>>>>>>> RIDICULOUSLY STUPID TO SAY THAT DDD IS NOT NEEDED* >> Like Fred has been saying for a month, what is HHH(HHH)? ^ >>>>>>>>>> When without DDD it is clear as crystal that HHH cannot >>>>>>>>>> possibly simulate itself correctly: >>>>>>>> You may repeat it many more times, but HHH violated the semantics >>>>>>>> of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a >>>>>>>> halting program. This finite string, when given for direct >>>>>>>> execution, shows a halting behaviour. This is the proof what the >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language means for this finite string: a >>>>>>>> halting program. >> It is very telling to see where these exchanges peter out (haha). > A dishonest dodge way form the subject of DDD emulated by HHH. To the subject of what? >>>>>>>> And when the x86 string tells the computer that there is a >>>>>>>> halting program and the simulator decides that there is a >>>>>>>> non-halting program, this proves that the simulation is >>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>> Clear as crystal: the semantics of the x86 string is proved by >>>>>>>> its direct execution. >>>>>>>> This is shown in the example below, where the direct execution of >>>>>>>> HHH halts, but HHH decides that it does not halt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> By this same reasoning that fact that you are no longer hungry >>>>>>> AFTER you have eaten proves that you never needed to eat. >>>>>>> The behavior of DDD before HHH aborts its simulation (before it >>>>>>> has eaten) it not the same behavior after DDD has been aborted >>>>>>> (after it has eaten). >> I do not understand this. There is no „after having been aborted”. > The directly executed DDD() has different behavior than DDD emulated by > HHH because DDD() benefits from HHH having already aborted its emulation > of DDD. HHH itself does not receive this benefit. „Already”? DDD and it’s simulation live in entirely different spaces. There can be absolutely no influence. >>>>>> If hungry stands for fear for infinite recursion >>>>> hungry stands for will not stop running unless aborted just like >>>>> will remain hungry until eating is always true whenever hungry >>>> Your HHH will see a 'special condition' after a few recursions, abort >>>> and halt. >>> It is a design requirement that HHH halts if it doesn't halt it is >>> wrong. >> Then why does it report itself as nonterminating? (There is nothing >> else in DDD that would cause that.) > How could it do that? IT MUST TERMINATE TO REPORT ANYTHING. ??? >>> When DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 >>> language cannot possibly reach its own machine address of 00002183, >>> then HHH is correct to reject DDD as non-halting even of HHH does this >>> entirely by wild guess. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.